view of the present-day tendency to emphasize the diversity of the
book is an integral part; (3) that the Old and New Testament are related to each other as type and antitype, prophecy and fulfilment, germ and perfect development; and (4) that not only the explicit statements of the Bible, but also what may be deduced from it by good and necessary consequence, constitutes the Word of God. In view of all this, it is not only perfectly warranted, but absolutely necessary, to complement the usual grammatical and historical interpretation with a third.
The name "Theological Interpretation" deserves the preference, as expressive, at once, of the fact that its necessity follows from the divine authorship of the Bible, and of the equally important consideration that, in the last analysis, God is the proper Interpreter of His Word. The following subjects call for discussion: (1) The interpretation of the Bible as a unity; (2) The mystical sense of Scripture; (3) The implications of the Bible; and (4) Helps for the theological interpretation.
B. The Bible as a Unity
1. THE RELATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TO THE NEW. In view of the present-day tendency to emphasize the diversity of the contents of the Bible, it is not superfluous to call particular attention to the fact that it should be interpreted as a unity. And the first question that confronts the interpreter is that of the relation in which the Old and the New Testaments stand to each other. Past history revealed two opposite views that asserted and re-asserted themselves repeatedly in various forms. There was the antinomian error of ascribing too much of the carnal element to Judaism, on the one hand; and on the other, the nomistic fallacy of imposing too much of the Judaistic on Christianity. The one elevated the Christian at the expense of the Jewish religion, to which it ascribed a purely national, external, and temporal character; and in so doing, fostered the idea that the Old Testament has no permanent validity. The other conceived of the New Testament as a nova lex, somewhat on the order of the Old Testament, and in course of time led to the
institution of a separate priesthood, the erection of altars on which sacrifices were again brought, and the consecration of sacred times and places.
In opposition to these views, it is necessary to emphasize the unity of the Bible. Both the Old and the New Testament form essential parts of God's special revelation. God is the Author of both, and in both has the same purpose in mind. They both contain the same doctrine of redemption, preach the same Christ, and impose upon men the same moral and religious duties. At the same time, the revelation they contain is progressive, and gradually increases in definiteness, clearness, and spiritual conception. As the New Testament is implicit in the Old, so the Old is explicit in the New. Therefore we say that
a. The Old and New Testament constitute a unit.
(1) The doctrine of redemption was essentially the same for those who lived under the old covenant as it is for the Church of the New Testament. This is sometimes forgotten by those who, while recognizing the typical element of the Old Testament, lose sight of the symbolical character of many of its institutions and ceremonies. They see in the ceremonial institutions, rites and transactions of the Old Testament, only external forms that had no spiritual significance, and bodily exercises that profited but little; while in fact these ceremonies were symbols of spiritual truths. The sacrifices that were brought spoke of the forgiveness of sin on the basis of the atoning blood of Christ, and the oft-repeated washings symbolized the purifying influence of the Holy Spirit. The tabernacle as a whole was a revelation of the way that led to God, and Canaan itself constituted a symbol of the rest that remains for the people of God. The following passages prove that the Israelites had some conceptions of the spiritual significance of their rites and ceremonies: Lev. 26:41; 20:25, 26; Ps. 26:6; 51:7, 16, 17; Isa. 1:16.
(2) The true Israelites in the Old Testament, as well as in the New, are not the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but only they
who share his faith. In the election of Israel, God did not, in the last analysis, aim at the separation of Israel as a nation, but at the formation of a spiritual people, primarily gathered out of the chosen race, but also in part out of the surrounding nations. From the earliest times, proselytes were incorporated into Israel. Solomon, in his dedicatory prayer, did not forget the stranger who might come to worship in the temple (1 Kings 8:41 ff.); and the prophets looked forward with joyful expectancy to the time when the Gentiles, too, would bring their treasures into the temple of the Lord.
(3) The difference between the privileges and duties of the Old and of the New Testament people of God was purely relative, and not absolute. It is true, the Old Testament and the New are occasionally contrasted in the Bible. This is possible in view of the fact that the one emphasizes the law, and the other, grace. But there is no absolute antithesis. Even in the Old Testament the law was subservient to the covenant of grace. It was not purely an external rule; the pious Israelite had it written on the tablets of his heart (Ps. 37:31; 40:8). They were not saved in any other way than New Testament believers. They needed the same Mediator and the same Holy Spirit, and received the same blessings of the covenant of grace, though not so abundantly, nor in exactly the same manner. The Old and the New Testament are related to each other not merely as type and antitype, but also as bud and flower, as a primitive and a more perfect revelation.
(4) The ordinances of the old and new covenants are distinguished only by relative differences, such as correspond in nature to the change in the divine economy, and in the spiritual condition of those placed under it. In the Old Testament, circumcision and passover, sacrifices and purifications were not simply carnal institutions pertaining to the flesh, mere shadows of a coming reality. They also pertained to the conscience; and acceptable participation in them required faith on the part of the worshipper. It is quite true that, as the Epistle to the Hebrews says, "they could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience" (Heb. 9:9). But
this does not imply that they concerned only the purification of the flesh. Such purification would have had no meaning for one who was guilty of fraud, oppression, deceit, and the swearing of a false oath. Yet forgiveness for such sins was attainable through the appointed offerings. They had spiritual significance, as well as baptism and the Lord's Supper have in the New Testament dispensation, but of course, only in connection with the coming perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
b. In the interpretation of the Old and the New Testaments in their mutual relation, the interpreter should be guided by definite considerations.
(1) The Old Testament offers the key to the right interpretation of the New. The contents of the New Testament are already the fruit of a long previous development. The Old Testament, for instance, contains the account of creation and of man's fall in sin, of the establishment of the covenant of grace and of the adumbrations of the coming Redeemer. All these are presupposed in the New Testament, and knowledge of them is a prerequisite for its proper understanding. Moreover, the Old Testament contains a great deal that serves to illustrate New Testament passages. Cf. John 3:14, 15; Rom. 4:9–13; Heb. 13:10–13.
(2) The New Testament is a commentary on the Old. While the Old Testament contains but a shadowy representation of spiritual realities, the New Testament presents them in the perfect light of the fulness of time. The one contains types, the other antitypes; the one, prophecy, the other, fulfilment. The more perfect revelation of the New Testament illumines the pages of the Old. Sometimes New Testament writers furnish explicit and striking explanations of Old Testament passages, and reveal depths that might easily have escaped the interpreter. Cf. Acts 2:29–31; Matt. 11:10; 21:42; Gal. 4:22–31; and the whole Epistle to the Hebrews.